• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Call for Submissions

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Re-writing/copy-pasting the same things you wrote and were already responded to - the things you claimed are "facts" but as you use them are not accurate - is a waste of your time. But this is some grand Creationism Intellectualism right here:
Just so you know, THIS is what "evidence" looks like:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it.

The tested methodology:


Creationists do not deny facts.
So you accept macroevolution and the relatedness of humans and apes? Awesome!


What came after "The tested methodology:"?

This - all this, and not one word in response to it -

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice


WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny


DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies


DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo


"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "



Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,022
7,397
31
Wales
✟423,755.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
No, a theory is not made up of facts. If that were true, a theory would be a fact. As I have stressed to you in my earlier messages, a Theory, one out of possibly many theories, is one possible way to make sense of the scientific evidence we have before us. But the theory itself is not a fact. A theory is not made up of facts; rather a theory is a way in which we understand, or make sense, of the facts.

Wow. Just... wow. You are so wrong.

Scientific theoy:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts. For example, Newton’s Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works.[4] Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Creationists do not deny changes in DNA over time to produce long-term adaption to chronic conditions.
Many of them do.
That is why the Genetic Code is so complex and amazing. How was this Genetic Code designed to adapt in such amazing ways?
You do not seem to know what the Genetic Code is.

Also, still waiting for your definition of "genetic information: as is relevant here.
 
Upvote 0

driewerf

a day at the Zoo
Mar 7, 2010
3,434
1,961
✟267,108.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I would say,

Firstly, they are incorrect, because Evolution is a theory. A theory is not a fact.
It is both a theory and a fact.
The fact of evolution is the gradual change that we see in populations in nature over different generations.
The theory of evolution is our description of these changes and the mechanism driving these.

This has been explained to you different times in this thread by different people.
This has been explained here: Call for Submissions
and here: Call for Submissions
and here: Call for Submissions
and here Call for Submissions
But as you stated so eloquently:
You are writing nonsense, because you are not actually reading the responses given.
Which is an assessment that applies very well to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

driewerf

a day at the Zoo
Mar 7, 2010
3,434
1,961
✟267,108.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Creationists do not deny changes in DNA over time to produce long-term adaption to chronic conditions. That is why the Genetic Code is so complex and amazing. How was this Genetic Code designed to adapt in such amazing ways?
Who says that the genetic code was designed? Do you have any evidence of such design?
And before you even try, non-answers like "just look around" will not be accepted.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

setst777

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 25, 2018
2,446
651
67
Greenfield
Visit site
✟454,439.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Oh, brother. Here we go again...

The lead of said article.

The germ theory of disease is the currently accepted scientific theory for many diseases. It states that microorganisms known as pathogens or "germs" can lead to disease.

That's what I said. I was trying to keep it simple for you.

Part of the problem is that (as a physicist) when I hear "Atomic Theory" I think of the quantum mechanical theory of atomic structure. (The details of specific atoms and how they come about.)

For a science historian, "Atomic Theory" is the "Atomic Theory of Matter", i.e., matter is made of atoms which are the smallest unit of matter and those "atoms" contained the "fundamental essence" of those substances. For example consider copper, tin, and bronze. They knew that they could make very pure copper or tin that was just "copper" or "tin" and seemed to have nothing else in them. They could also alloy copper and tin to make bronze. Was the copper or tin destroyed? No, they could extract the copper and tin back out. The bronze always contained the "essence" of copper and of tin. Thus, atoms have elemental types like copper and tin.

The final element (pun intended) of the atomic theory of matter was the finite "chunk" aspect, the indivisible "atoms" of copper or tin. This was sorted out by chemists in the 18th and 19th century.

[Since then we have discovered that atoms do indeed have sub-components (electrons, protons, neutrons), but (and this is important) the minimal thing that *is* a copper atom has 29 (and only 29) protons and 29 electrons. If it didn't it wouldn't be copper. So there is a effective "essence" of "copperness."]

Despite all you wrote, we can never be absolutely certain, because new evidence is always possible. Thus we know that matter consists of atoms. For instance, dark matter contradicts the notion that matter is made of the kinds of atoms we are familiar with.
 
Upvote 0

driewerf

a day at the Zoo
Mar 7, 2010
3,434
1,961
✟267,108.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You can never put a theory first to describe facts. That will end in bias.
88916_600.jpg
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,559
16,263
55
USA
✟409,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Despite all you wrote, we can never be absolutely certain, because new evidence is always possible. Thus we know that matter consists of atoms. For instance, dark matter contradicts the notion that matter is made of the kinds of atoms we are familiar with.

Have you found any "Dark Matter"?

Are you sure "Dark Matter" is actually matter?

Stick to you ignorance of things that have actually been detected.
 
Upvote 0

setst777

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 25, 2018
2,446
651
67
Greenfield
Visit site
✟454,439.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
These are just biological responses of a single organism. No different than an organism feeling a compulsion to drink (thirst) due to low water levels in the body, or plants growing toward the sunlight.

Those are actually evolution.

If you want to call it evolution, that is fine. However once evolution includes the idea that one kind of life form and evolve into another kind of life form, that is where creationists disagree.

And, to be honest, evolutionists do claim that simpler life forms develop into more complex life forms. This is a theory, because there is no evidence for this; rather all things are so far proven to produce after its own kind, just as Genesis states in many places.
 
Upvote 0

setst777

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 25, 2018
2,446
651
67
Greenfield
Visit site
✟454,439.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Wow. Just... wow. You are so wrong.

Scientific theoy:
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact or scientific law in that a theory explains "why" or "how": a fact is a simple, basic observation, whereas a law is a statement (often a mathematical equation) about a relationship between facts. For example, Newton’s Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works.[4] Stephen Jay Gould wrote that "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

I agree. And that is what I stated. You actually disagree as shown by your statement that a theory is made up of facts.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟348,882.00
Faith
Atheist
Any good theory can be made to fit the facts we now observe with enough skill.
Many hypotheses may fit the data, but to be taken seriously, they must make testable predictions that are fruitful.

You haven't suggested any testable predictions of creation theory - does this mean you don't know of any or there aren't any?

A hypothesis or theory that isn't testable is not a scientific hypothesis or theory.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,022
7,397
31
Wales
✟423,755.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
I agree. And that is what I stated. You actually disagree as shown by your statement that a theory is made up of facts.

How do you get to theories without facts? You need facts to make a theory.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

setst777

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 25, 2018
2,446
651
67
Greenfield
Visit site
✟454,439.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Who says that the genetic code was designed? Do you have any evidence of such design?
And before you even try, non-answers like "just look around" will not be accepted.

If the genetic code was not designed, then there is no evidence to explain how the genetic code, and complex as it is, could have come into being.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Hood was a loser.
Mar 11, 2017
21,559
16,263
55
USA
✟409,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If you want to call it evolution, that is fine.

Because they are evolution. Glad you can accept that.

However once evolution includes the idea that one kind of life form and evolve into another kind of life form, that is where creationists disagree.

"life form"... I'm not sure that's a good term. I consider myself to be a "life form" (an individual of a species).


I think you mean "population" or "species".

And, to be honest, evolutionists do claim that simpler life forms develop into more complex life forms.

And they have the evidence (some of it is up thread).

This is a theory, because there is no evidence for this;

Again, that's not what a theory is. Theories are called "theory" BECAUSE they have evidence. (Not because there is no evidence, that would be "speculation".)

rather all things are so far proven to produce after its own kind, just as Genesis states in many places.

It took a long time, but thank you for admitting that creationism is just a religious dogma based on a reading of scripture.
 
Upvote 0

setst777

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 25, 2018
2,446
651
67
Greenfield
Visit site
✟454,439.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It is both a theory and a fact.
The fact of evolution is the gradual change that we see in populations in nature over different generations.
The theory of evolution is our description of these changes and the mechanism driving these.

This has been explained to you different times in this thread by different people.
This has been explained here: Call for Submissions
and here: Call for Submissions
and here: Call for Submissions
and here Call for Submissions
But as you stated so eloquently:

Which is an assessment that applies very well to you.

Creationists do not deny adaptation within a kind of creature. What creationists deny, and you cannot prove, is that one kind of creature can evolve into a different kind of creature.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,022
7,397
31
Wales
✟423,755.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Creationists do not deny adaptation within a kind of creature. What creationists deny, and you cannot prove, is that one kind of creature can evolve into a different kind of creature.

What is a Kind?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟348,882.00
Faith
Atheist
If a theory is tested and verified, which means it can be tested and verified, then it is no longer a theory, but rather, is a fact. You are putting far to much faith in your theory... so much so that you are defining it as if it were already a fact.
That's not how science works. In science, the facts are the verified observational data. A hypothesis is a testable explanation proposed to account for the facts. A theory is a hypothesis that has been independently tested and verified and is widely accepted as the best explanation for the facts.

A scientific theory does not become a fact. Scientific theories are always provisional.

You're welcome.
 
Upvote 0

setst777

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 25, 2018
2,446
651
67
Greenfield
Visit site
✟454,439.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Have you found any "Dark Matter"?

Are you sure "Dark Matter" is actually matter?

Stick to you ignorance of things that have actually been detected.

Good questions. That is why we do not have all the facts.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟348,882.00
Faith
Atheist
If a theory is tested and verified, which means it can be tested and verified, then it is no longer a theory, but rather, is a fact. You are putting far to much faith in your theory... so much so that you are defining it as if it were already a fact.
I notice that once again, you're unable or unwilling to substantiate your claims.

You said, "we have many examples of evolutionists, and also creationists, who have not only hidden data, but also falsified data to bolster their theory, which they believe to be true, but can't find the evidence."

I asked, "Many examples? how many can you name?"

So, how many examples? do you have citations? references? links?
 
Upvote 0